THE PENNY is only just beginning to drop about the implications of 12 county councils applying to delay their elections until next year, nominally in order to pursue local government reorganisation, but which will deprive millions of people of their right to vote in May.
Although the District Councils’ Network (DCN), which has 169 member councils, has complained and the Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe has expressed his outrage and said there is no justification for what they are doing, this latest abuse of democracy has received scant media attention and few seem to understand either why it is happening or what the implications are.
The official basis for these councils’ applications is Angela Rayner’s English Devolution White Paper, quietly published just before Christmas under the guise of a ‘growth’ agenda but which revealed plans to replace England’s county and district councils with unitary councils with populations of more than half a million. These will be mega-councils imposed on communities without any regard for the views of those who live in them, which inevitably will erode local democracy.
On the back of this, councils were invited to apply for the Government’s new scheme in the knowledge that if selected, they would be able to delay this year’s elections until next year. Several have spotted an opportunity.
The chairman of the DCN, Sam Chapman-Allen, has expressed his fury: ‘Democracy is being sidelined with the local electorate being deprived of any democratic opportunity to give their verdict on a major reorganisation that will have far-reaching repercussions for the destiny of thousands of English towns and villages.’ Furthermore, as he says, it makes no sense to give councils the chance to sidestep the local electorate before reorganisation proposals have been published ‘when no one can tell whether this is something that residents would want’.
That surely is the point. In the meantime a process that could lead to a six-or seven-year election gap nominally in order to pursue local government reorganisation, will serve to prevent newly elected councillors from scrutinising the these councils’ ineptitude, inefficiency and last but not least their most controversial policy decisions. This clearly has its attraction for the 12 councils which have applied.
Now the Centre for Migration Control has thrown further light on this convenient excuse for denying voters’ right to replace their councillors. They have lifted the lid on one of the most highly contentious policies these councils share – housing for illegal migrants. What they have found is that in those very same counties there has been a way above the average 344 per cent increase in illegal migrants since voters last went to the polls in 2021 – illegal migrants they have been housing since the last elections.
Here are the main findings of their report:
The 12 county councils set to deprive British citizens of their vote have seen a 344 per cent increase in the number of illegal migrants that they are housing since the last round of local elections.
Across the whole of England, by contrast, the increase in illegal migrants being housed in hotels and residential properties increased by 184 per cent since December 2021 – from 51,060 to 94,117 in September 2024 (the latest available data).
Sadiq Khan’s London – which is riddled with so-called ‘sanctuary boroughs’ that ‘value and celebrate refugees’ – has seen one of the ‘smallest’ increases, of 177 per cent. This contrasts with 363 per cent in the East of England and 303 per cent in the South East.
Across the entire United Kingdom, the total increase of 177 per cent means that the county councils now planning top disenfranchise their voters are the ones that have inflicted on them an uplift in illegal migrants that is two times the average increase across England.
Their paper then breaks that ‘uplift’ down for each of these county councils since they last faced voters:
- Devon: A 4475% increase, although relatively small in actual numbers, from 4 to 179.
- East Sussex: A 26% decrease. One of just two counties to see a fall.
- Essex: A 712% increase, with Braintree seeing the number shoot up from 3 to 564 and Chelmsford seeing an increase from 5 to 439. 2186 illegal migrants are now settled in this county.
- Gloucestershire: A 287% increase, with a near threefold increase in Gloucester from 132 to 379.
- Hampshire: A 168% increase with almost 1,300 illegal migrants now housed here.
- Kent: A 875% increase, with Ashford seeing the number grow from just 2 in 2021 to 189 in 2024.
- Norfolk: A 307% increase driven mainly by 365 illegal migrants now housed in Norwich.
- Suffolk: The second county to see a decrease – although of just 19.
- Surrey: An increase of 215%, with Reigate & Banstead (367) and Surrey Heath (143) bearing the brunt.
- Warwickshire: A 401% increase primarily due to the numbers in Rugby shooting up from 81 to 421.
- West Sussex: A 460% increase, with Mid Sussex shooting up to 621 and Crawley now hosting 465.
- Worcestershire: A 917% increase from 23 to 211.
The Centre for Migration Control explains:
‘Although clearly the majority of the blame for this catastrophic state of affairs rests with the Home Office and its neutered attempt to ‘stop the boats’ and ‘smash the gangs’, voters should not be deprived of the chance to pass a verdict on the imposition that this crisis poses on their local community.
‘The argument presented in favour of cancelling these elections is that, because of plans to reorganise local government, the costs associated with hosting a ballot are unjustified. This argument, of course, is perpetuated by the same political class all too happy to spend over £6bn a year on our asylum system.’
Worse, as I pointed out above, the council reorganisation that the Government plans is anti-democratic in origin, execution and outcome.
The Centre for Migration Control encourages you to contact your local councillor if you live in any of the following areas to let them know your concerns.
Gloucestershire County Council.
Worcestershire County Council.‘
The Centre’s critique is uncompromising: ‘After each nescient decision taken by politicians – whether at a national or local level – one has to wonder whether they really care about the concerns of voters. This disconnect is perhaps most acute on the issue of illegal migration and the fact that tens of thousands of individuals who broke into Britain are now being housed, fed, and entertained at the taxpayers’ expense’ . . . ‘while the country’s pensioners are stripped of their winter fuel allowance’ and ‘thousands of Brits – including 4,000 service veterans – are forced to spend the night on the street.
You can read their full report here.
